M.Rajesh v. Union of India & Ors.

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 04-11-2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIANW.P.(MD)No.11695 of 2011AndM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011M.Rajesh.. PetitionerVs.1.Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.2.Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through its Managing Director, Indian Oil Bhavan, 7th Floor, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.3.The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated15.9.2011 in Ref.MAO/NPK/11 and quash the same as illegal, arbitraryand consequently direct the third respondent-Corporation to acceptthe application of the petitioner as eligible and allow him toparticipate in the interview. For Petitioner: Mr.H.Lakshmi ShankarFor Respondent-1: Mr.T.JeyakumarFor Respondents-2&3: Mr.K.Muraleedharan, Standing Counsel for IOC.O R D E RThe petitioner has come up with the above writ petition,challenging an order by which his application for the award of L.P.G.Distributorship was rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. Heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Mr.T.Jeyakumar, learned counsel for the first respondentand Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for I.O.C., takesnotice for the second and third respondents.3. The third respondent issued advertisements in "The Hindu" and"Dinakaran" in their editions, dated 15.6.2010 for the award ofL.P.G. Distributorship for several areas including the area ofNagamalai Pudukottai in Madurai District under the open category. Theadvertisements made it clear that detailed guidelines for selectionwere available in a brochure at a particular website on payment ofRs.50/- to the Indian Oil Corporation.4. The petitioner submitted an application in response to thoseadvertisements on 19.7.2010. But by the impugned order, dated15.9.2011, the third respondent informed the petitioner that hiscandidature was found to be not eligible. The reason stated by thethird respondent in the impugned communication was that the affidavitwas not as per the format. Aggrieved by the rejection of hiscandidature, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.In order to understand the real grievance of the petitioner, it isnecessary to extract the impugned order which is not sketchy but veryshort which reads as follows:-"Please refer to your application on thesubject. We regret to inform you that yourcandidature has not been found to be eligiblefor award of subject distributorship as Affidavit is not as per the format i.e.,removed clauses pertaining to eligibility orpertaining to evaluation."5. Though the third respondent has not filed a counter, the writpetition was taken up for disposal, in view of the fact that thedispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is covered bya decision rendered by me in W.P.(MD)No.11147 of 2011 dated20.10.2011.6. Though the impugned order does not state very precisely thereason for rejection of the application of the petitioner, it isstated across the bar that the petitioner did not submit thenotarized affidavit, in the format in which it was to be submitted.The format of the affidavit which is to be filed by all theaspirants, was provided by the third respondent himself. In theaffidavit, the petitioner is obliged to make certain declarations.The declaration under paragraph-3 of the affidavit relates to thequalification of Matriculation/SSC or equivalent examination. Butthere was a confusion about the filling up of paragraph-3 of theaffidavit, since a footnote to the affidavit indicated that whateverwas not applicable had to be struck off. Yet the petitioner filled upthe same.7. Unfortunately, the third respondent has taken exception tothe fact that the petitioner failed to score off, whatever was notapplicable in that affidavit. Since the affidavit gave severalalternatives, there was a requirement to strike off whatever was notapplicable. But the petitioner did not meticulously strike off whatwas not applicable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

38. But the details which were not scored off in the affidavit,were not very significant in nature. They were not very crucial fordetermining the eligibility of the petitioner. Therefore, therejection of the candidature of the petitioner appears to be on aflimsy ground.9. As a matter of fact, I have myself come across three cases,relating to the same distributorship arising out of the sameNotification. In all cases, the orders rejecting the application ofthe aspirants are identically worded, without giving any clarity.This shows that the third respondent failed to put the applicants inexact terms as to their deficiencies.10. A perusal of the copy of the application filed by thepetitioner shows that the petitioner had filled up all relevantdetails in the application form. There is no dispute about the factthat the petitioner had also enclosed all the items indicated, at theend of the application form. The third respondent does not disputethe eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the selection.Therefore, (i) when the petitioner had filled up the application formcorrectly furnishing all necessary information, (ii) when thepetitioner has admittedly enclosed all the necessary documents asrequired and (iii) when the petitioner indisputably fulfills theeligibility criteria, the rejection of his application, is not wellfounded, especially for the reasons stated by the third respondent.11. Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for the secondand third respondents placed strong reliance upon the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kant Yadav vs. Indian Oil Corporationand others reported in {2007 (3) MLJ 841}. In that case, the Hon'bleSupreme Court held that when the requirement to disclose true andcorrect particulars in the application for dealership is notfulfilled, there is a violation of the declaration and hence, thecancellation of dealership cannot be interfered with. Therefore,learned counsel for the second and third respondents submitted thatwhen the petitioner was guilty of omissions and commissions in thefilling up of the application form, his application form was liablefor rejection and that the same cannot be found fault with.12. But the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon bythe learned counsel for the second and third respondents, cannot beapplied to the facts of the present case. In the case before theHon'ble Supreme Court, a person to whom dealership was awarded, wasfound guilty of suppression of material particulars relating to hisannual income. The petitioner in that case was found guilty ofsuppression of material facts. When he took a stand that themisstatement in the application was not material, the same wasrejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, the casebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court, arose out of a false declaration.The petitioner had, as pointed out earlier, already enclosed theCertificates relating to the educational qualifications along withhis application. Therefore, there was no suppression in this case.Ever omission need not amount to suppression or misstatement.Therefore, the requirement was wrong in rejecting the candidature ofthe petitioner.13. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner hadnot come to Court in time. Again, it would have been different if https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4events had overtaken the fate of the petitioner. Today, it isadmitted that the interviews for the award of distributorship arescheduled to commence only from the second week of November 2011.Apart from the preliminary scrutiny of applications, no furtherprogress has been made by the third respondent for finalising thedistributorship. Therefore, no prejudice will also be caused to thethird respondent by inviting the petitioner for the oral interviewscheduled to be held from the second week of November 2011.14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, theimpugned order is set aside and the third respondent is directed toconsider the application of the petitioner and call him forinterview, if he is otherwise eligible for being called forinterview. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition isclosed.Sd/-Deputy Registrar(Writs)/True Copy/Assistant Registrar To1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.2.The Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhavan, 7th Floor, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.3.The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.+1cc to Mr.K.Muralidharan, Advocate, Sr.No.38276+1cc to Mr.H.Lakhsmi Shankar, Advocate, Sr.No.38277svnssk/08.11.2011 /6c -4p/- W.P.(MD)No.11695 of 201104-11-2011